The urgent need for fundamental reform of the United Nations, part V: Creation of an International Panel on the Reform of the United Nations (IPRUN)

Trump in Un

President Trump addresses – blasts – the General Assembly of the United Nations to convince the assembly that nationalism should guide international relations: It seems he did not bother to read the Preamble of the United Nations Charter.

In the previous four parts of this series of articles, I argued that superficial reform – like streamlining the UN’s bureaucracy – will not suffice to solve the fundamental problems the current international order – the United Nations – now confronts.

Because of population growth, differentiated growth of states and rivalries between states in anarchistic systems, international orders require periodic reorganisation.

The problem is that international orders in anarchistic systems lack mechanisms to ‘upgrade’ an international by means of consultation and consensus.

In this article – the last article in this series – I argue that an International Panel on the Reform of the United Nations (IPRUN) must be established, in an effort to avoid a violent systemic crisis.

Read more

The urgent need for fundamental reform of the United Nations, part IV: Only fundamental reorganisation of the United Nations can prevent its collapse

Us shouldering

International orders – like other organisations that are confronted with growth, change and differentiated growth of its departments (states in case of the international order) – have typical life cycles, and need periodic ‘upgrades’ to ensure their continued effectiveness and efficiency.

However, contrary to ‘normal’ organisations, international orders are anarchistic in nature and lack mechanisms to adapt in a non-destructive manner to changed circumstances, history shows.

Awareness of the underlying mechanisms of the System’s dynamics is required to avoid collapse of the United Nations, as I explain in this article.

Read more

Who is “begging for war”?

begging

“Cho Tae-yul, the South Korean ambassador, and Ambassador Nikki Haley of the United States during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Monday to discuss North Korea’s nuclear tests. “The time has come for us to exhaust all of our diplomatic means before it’s too late,” Ms. Haley said” (source). But who is actually begging for war?

 

According to the US, North-Korea is “begging for war“. It is however a matter of perspective: The US – it can be argued – is begging for much more war, and not only in North Korea.

Read more

No missiles to Guam, but North Korea’s threats are not removed

applause

Another successful provocation – ‘trap’ – of North Korea for the United States.

The leadership of North Korea – Kim Jung Un – must walk a fine line to ensure its survival in the face of two existential threats: The continuous aggression of the United States and its allies, and the risk of social unrest and collapse in North Korea.

The last round of mutual threats and provocations, was a resounding success for Kim Jung Un – at least for now – who confirmed its hero-status at home, while the United States and its allies are still confronted with North Korea’s growing military capabilities.

Read more

The behaviour of the United States is self-destructive

John wayne

President Trump considers Hollywood’s version of the United States’ self-image to be reality. But even John Wayne knows better.

This week, through several statements, president Trump of the United States took friend and foe (again) by surprise. Led by his ‘gut feeling’ and a rather limited perspective on international politics and human relations, Trump issued a number of far-stretching warnings to North-Korea, and Venezuela, related to North-Korea’s provocations and Venezuela’s internal political struggles.

Read more

America’s miscalculations

NuclearCountries2300

Source: The Washington Post.

When assessing security threats – like the escalating threats the United States and North-Korea are now exchanging – military and political analysts typically focus on two factors: the capabilities and intentions of the state that poses the threat. Does North-Korea have the capabilities to live up to its threats, and have the threats – explicit and implicit in the threats – any (political) credibility?

But a third factor – the stage of development of the international order – cannot be ignored, as I explain in this article.

Read more